<br />"It's a big and fanciful
<br />
<br />construct that they've
<br />
<br />put together,"
<br />- Robert Wiygul, Earthjustice
<br />Legal Defense Fund
<br />
<br />are separately approved
<br />for funding by Congress,
<br />The Clinton adminis-
<br />tration has remained
<br />adamant about deaurhor-
<br />iziog the remaining
<br />components of the
<br />original project bur some current project
<br />proponents remain concerned.
<br />Fred Kroeger, presidenr of the
<br />Southwest Water Conservation Disnict,
<br />a coalition of M&I and agricultural
<br />interests in Colorado, said priority water
<br />rights status is extremely important to
<br />the state and that by de-authorizing the
<br />remainder of the project, Colorado
<br />would lose its water priority, thus
<br />changing the availability of water for
<br />agricultural interests,
<br />"It's really a drop dead issue," said
<br />Kroeger. "Unless that component of the
<br />bill is retained in H.R. 3112, we will
<br />probably back away from the project
<br />and just let the Indians sue."
<br />Concerns also have been raised from
<br />
<br />
<br />'~;;~~~f,~~i~t
<br />; ',.", ,nK"",A,k ','-'l;" ".,;
<br />"~W:I;,~'~.:~
<br />..';;~t1~,.." "",',' "'..,.,..,,.,.;. ,. ,".,
<br />
<br />',"wKe~llt'...,fr" illii;qlnMti1iiU,.".,
<br />, .'" "(.",:'c "';":'':~'' ,',', ~.' ',,:,',,"(;::\ ,t("Y~;:\':, ",'
<br />.ijt~~i.I'tij{<iI(il>the':!;l~\?~~tJl'eS'
<br />';,','as,'",' '.",',.,.,'~<:$e,.., "lvat,lO" ,'.ii,. ~,",,', ;,;~~,."',". ',' d,'. 100l,tlil, I,Y,
<br />, U$ing0,e!'teeedent~~hY;$4~ieme
<br />COllr'\~,decj$i~ulcllel~OillVinrerJ'
<br />ti;[JnirerlSrate~Case.ti\e~;'i1tt
<br />4d;ision,kno",nastb<iWinrers
<br />Poctrin~.deteflnil;e.J,.,illittlndjo,n
<br />warer ~jghxs exist gjv"!1,~(rhe vilue
<br />oO~nd i~ ~pend~liton"c~essw
<br />"'ater,{So.m~;l.fgue cllatanJllZ9
<br />massacre of Settle~att~eWhite
<br />RhterSraddnin Colorado arid
<br />'Subsi:quent teinpo,rary ,iermin3:tiori of
<br />theInbe's lan4oW!Je",hiphY~fl~ct
<br />of 9o!1gr.,,~ ~utJjfied\;Jte",ater
<br />rights,This argllmerlr has never beel)
<br />,r"cognizedbythecourts~lld was
<br />
<br />opponents of the project
<br />over potential uses for
<br />the water, none of
<br />which has been identi-
<br />fied for certain. The
<br />tribes have identified
<br />several "non-binding use
<br />scenarios" that include possibly using the
<br />water for golf courses and other recre-
<br />ational uses; for coal or gas-fired power
<br />plants; or in-stream leasing to local
<br />municipalities. However, opponents
<br />remain skeptical.
<br />"It's a big and fanciful construct that
<br />they've pur together," said Robert
<br />Wiygul, a managing attorney for
<br />Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
<br />(formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense
<br />Fund), "If you're not going to have any
<br />use for that water and it remains stored
<br />in the reservoir for 80 or 100 years into
<br />the future, why would you build it?"
<br />Earthjustice, along with groups
<br />including Taxpayers for the Animas
<br />River, Southern Ute Grassroots Organi-
<br />
<br />, '
<br />, """,,' ',:.:':,"::- ,,:-:: "
<br />~i~~t~c1J,yt~e,S~lkitQrGeneral of
<br />tirepepi\ttin~t~fthe Intetior.)
<br />" ""Tire19p4-1rizcnav,CalijPrnia
<br />" 'd~cisio;it~fmed the Winters
<br />, J:i<>ctrIll~ b}if~(atingthat tribes did
<br />'h;i~~,;r~~,;,~~,~ters"'appurtenant to
<br />, th~Ir, orig11lil1 ,~{Vation lands,
<br />Arizunav'eo.1ijPrnia aI~oestablished
<br />the Sral'ld~ltlfotdeterminiog the
<br />afiwunt-. ofwa-.t~r reserved to tribes.
<br />Qu.arlJl~",,!i()nof warer rights would
<br />behased;o~,the concept af "practica-
<br />bly,irrlgabl~acre;>ge." (PIA) the
<br />ainount:of~ter needed to irrigate
<br />l~ndsthaicou1d reasonably grow
<br />crops,Ma~Ytribes have quantified
<br />,heir <wiInets water rights through
<br />settleme~t:~~otiarionswit'h the
<br />federaLgoverm:nent. However" under
<br />ALP, the CWo !=olorado Ute Tribes
<br />h~d rheir Water rIghts quanrified
<br />ulldet a-wa~er'r1ghts settlement that
<br />included considerations .other than
<br />JUSt PIAquaricification, 0
<br />
<br />6 . COLORADO RIVER PROJECT . RIVER REPORT . WINTER 200e
<br />
<br />zation (Southern Ute Indians opposed ro
<br />a structural alternative) and tpe Four
<br />Corners Action Coalition remain
<br />committed to finding non-structural
<br />solutions to the area's water needs,
<br />The Bureau, however, says the project
<br />is entirely within its rights not to specify
<br />what the water will be used for.
<br />"Some believe that National Environ-
<br />mental Policy Act and the Clean Water
<br />Act demand ALP show what the water
<br />will be used for," said Pat Schumacher,
<br />manager of the Bureau's Southern
<br />Division, Western Colorado Area Office.
<br />"From the Bureau's point of view, Indian
<br />water righrs settlements are intended to
<br />grant water rights to tribes and are not
<br />intended to tie tribes down to a particu-
<br />lar LIse,"
<br />Many project opponents support the
<br />Animas River Citizens Coalition
<br />Conceptual Alternative, one of two non-
<br />structural alternatives reviewed in the
<br />2000 EIS, Under the proposal, money
<br />would be given (0 the tribes to purchase
<br />water rights in order to meet Indian
<br />water quantifications under the '88 Act.
<br />They say this plan, which the 2000 EIS
<br />estimates could take up (0 30 years (and
<br />maybe longer) (0 implement, is less
<br />expensive ($273 million vs, $278 million
<br />for the reservoir according to the 2000
<br />EIS, but only $115 million by citizens'
<br />estimates) and less environmentally
<br />destructive than building a new reservoir.
<br />However proponents of the reservoir,
<br />including the two tribes, say there are
<br />toO many uncertainties involved with
<br />rhe non-structural plan, "It doesn't
<br />provide us with wet water and only
<br />provides us with paper water which is
<br />what we have now," said the Southern
<br />Ute's Frost.
<br />Water rights purchased under sllch a
<br />plan would, under Colorado water law,
<br />carry the same use as current water
<br />rights and would carry the same priority
<br />dates as the sellers today possess - far
<br />more removed than the 1868 priority
<br />granted to the Colorado Ute tribes
<br />under the Winters Doctrine.
<br />"Even if the tribes were to purchase
<br />land and corresponding water rights,
<br />
|